[book-dp1] Appendix A and B HTML/PDF comparison issues

[Chihiro2000GitHub]

@mmcky @jstac -- The following are mismatches between the HTML version and the PDF version in Appendix A and B.

1. PDF citation rendering issue in Appendices A and B

One example in Appendix A (PDF):

One example in Appendix B (PDF):

PDF: In Appendices A and B, some citations appear in an “Author, year” form even where the citation is used as part of the sentence, as shown in the examples above.

HTML: In the corresponding locations, the HTML renders these citations in a narrative author–year form, such as “Bartle & Sherbert (2011)” and “Dudley (2002)”.

Issue: The PDF rendering seems incorrect in these contexts. These citations should probably be rendered in a narrative form, such as “Bartle and Sherbert (2011)” and “Dudley (2002).”

Final note

This completes my review of Vol. I. It took me a little longer than expected, but I have tried to check the PDF/HTML comparison carefully throughout. I’m fairly confident that the main structural and visual issues I could identify have now been flagged or resolved.

Please let me know if there is anything else I should check. I’d be happy to help 😊

Thanks!

[jstac]

Excellent work @Chihiro2000GitHub . Very careful and thorough. It's greatly appreciated.

[mmcky]

Thanks @Chihiro2000GitHub — confirmed, and your diagnosis is right: in these appendix contexts the PDF is the incorrect side.

Root cause. These citations use the generic \cite command, whereas the book uses \citet for narrative citations everywhere else (405× book-wide; only 40 plain \cite, of which these 5 are in the appendix). The bibliography is biblatex style=authoryear, where \citet → "Author (year)" (narrative) but generic \cite → "Author, year". The same bartle2011introduction key is cited via \citet at book/ch_intro.tex:2258 and renders correctly as "Bartle and Sherbert (2011)". The five appendix occurrences are at book/appendix.tex lines 9, 125, 140, 300, 324 — and line 140 is also grammatically broken in the PDF ("Bartle and Sherbert, 2011 give an excellent introduction").

Triage. This is a LaTeX source issue (the wrong citation command), not a conversion artifact — so the fix belongs in the .tex source and corrects the PDF. Switching the five to \citet brings them in line with the book's convention and produces "Bartle and Sherbert (2011)" / "Dudley (2002)" in the PDF.

One clarification on the HTML: it was already rendering these narratively, so the HTML output is unchanged by this fix — MyST renders both \cite and \citet as a narrative citation. The "&" vs "and" you noticed ("Bartle & Sherbert") comes from the HTML citation style (CSL) and applies to all narrative citations site-wide (the existing \citet ones show "&" too), so that's a separate, global styling decision rather than part of this fix.

Fix. Tracked in QuantEcon/book-dp1#372 with PR QuantEcon/book-dp1#373 (5× \cite → \citet, regenerates appA/appB), awaiting @jstac's review since it touches the book source.

And thank you for the thorough Vol. I review — much appreciated! 🙏

[jstac]

Thanks @mmcky .

Please feel free to change the tex files without my review --- unless it involves matters of opinion.

[mmcky]

Thanks @mmcky .

Please feel free to change the tex files without my review --- unless it involves matters of opinion.

Roger that @jstac -- I'll start merging these small changes to the TeX without approval -- unless it involves matters of opinion.